Allahabad High Court Issues Contempt Notice to Bareilly DM and SSP Over Namaz Dispute
The Allahabad High Court has taken a stern stance against alleged administrative overreach in Bareilly, issuing contempt notices to District Magistrate Ravindra Kumar and Senior Superintendent of Police Anurag Arya. The court action stems from accusations that the officials prevented a group of Muslims from offering namaz inside a private residence in Mohammadganj village.
Court Proceedings and Legal Basis
A bench comprising Justices Atul Shreedharan and Siddharth Nandan initiated contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, on February 12. The court simultaneously stayed any coercive action against petitioner Tarik Khan while fixing March 11 as the next hearing date and seeking responses from the accused officers.
The court's decision relies significantly on its earlier ruling in the Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries vs State of UP case, which involved Christian organizations seeking permission for prayer meetings. In that landmark judgment, the High Court established that individuals may conduct religious prayers within their private property without requiring prior state permission, provided the gathering remains confined to the premises and does not extend to public roads or land.
The court observed that this precedent prima facie applies to the current case involving Muslim prayers, creating a legal framework that protects religious practices within private spaces across different faith communities.
Background of the Dispute
The controversy traces back to January 16, when authorities detained and later released a group of Muslims who had gathered to offer namaz inside a vacant house owned by Reshma Khan. The homeowner confirmed she had permitted the gathering and emphasized that the prayers were strictly confined to her private premises.
Petitioner Tarik Khan articulated the community's position clearly: "The January 27 order related to another minority section — Christians — clearly stated that prayers can be offered within the premises of a private property. We too are a minority, so the same rule should apply to us. So far, we have been protected by the court's stay, and that is why we resumed our prayers from the house."
Legal Expert Analysis
Senior High Court lawyer SFA Naqvi provided insightful commentary on both the court order and subsequent protests by Hindu residents. He stated that the ruling leaves little room for ambiguity, noting: "The order is self-explanatory. On the one hand, the court has upheld the petitioner's constitutional right to hold prayers within private premises. On the other hand, the state itself has submitted before the court that no prohibitory order has been issued in this regard."
Naqvi further emphasized the administrative responsibilities in such situations: "It is the responsibility of the state to maintain law and order — not that of private individuals. If there is any protest against the holding of prayers, it is for government to address and manage the situation in accordance with the law. Those opposing a lawful religious practice should be dealt with by the authorities, rather than the individuals exercising their constitutional rights."
Community Tensions and Local Response
Meanwhile, tensions in Mohammadganj village have escalated significantly. Some Hindu residents have objected to the resumption of Friday prayers at the house, with five families painting "House for Sale" on their exterior walls. These residents expressed concerns that weekly prayer meetings organized in different private houses could lead to residential properties being converted into permanent places of worship.
A representation has been submitted to Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath seeking intervention in the matter. The village, comprising approximately 100 houses with a population of nearly 600, has members of both communities living in close proximity, making the situation particularly sensitive.
Kamal Kishore, a villager, voiced local apprehensions: "They were stopped last time, but now they have resumed the namaz in the same house. We want the house to be demolished before it is converted into a madrasa and mosque."
Police Stance and Administrative Position
SSP Anurag Arya maintained that the situation remains under control, with increased police deployment earlier this week as disagreements escalated into public protests. He clarified the administration's position: "No coercive action has been taken. We have never interfered with religious practices as long as they do not violate established norms. Our concern is only to ensure that no residential property is clandestinely converted into a notified place of public worship without due process."
The case highlights the delicate balance between religious freedom, property rights, and community harmony in India's diverse social fabric. As the March 11 hearing approaches, all eyes remain on how the High Court will navigate these complex constitutional and social issues while upholding the rule of law and protecting minority rights.
